7 ms·

It's weird how many smart people still haven't realized they are being lied to by the legacy media and establishment figures. Even after repeatedly discrediting

It's weird how many smart people still haven't realized they are being lied to by the legacy media and establishment figures. Even after repeatedly discrediting themselves. Taibbi and Shellenberger aren't perfect either, but they are more reliable and honest. Taibbi is still the investigative journalist he's always been.

fsckboy 3y ago
I think it's a case of not noticing because they agree with the directionality of the MSM's opinions, so it doesn't stick out to them.
the_arcadian 3y ago
They say it is always easier to con intelligent people, because they don't think they are capable of being fooled.
- spyder 3y ago
  Hmm... but intelligent people don't think they're that intelligent (Dunning–Kruger effect) :-)
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  This is fun to think about but I dont buy it. All levels of aptitude/intelligence are equally likely to be conned because a con works by getting your emotions to turn your intelligence to the task of tricking you. For example, by exciting your greed so much you come up with a justification for why an unusual circumstance is genuine.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > For example, by exciting your greed so much you come up with a justification for why an unusual circumstance is genuine. But you might be better at that the more intelligent you are. E.g. I understand there's an established result that professional ethicists and ethics researchers act less ethically than the average person on average, because they find it easier to come up with excuses for how what they wanted to do was actually ethical.
    - droopyEyelids 3y ago
      Agreed! However, you're missing that the higher your aptitude, the higher the bar for tricking yourself. So yes, a very intelligent person can come up with a sophisticated justification to trick themselves. A less intelligent person will come up with a less sophisticated narrative. Both people work on the con till it's enough to pass their bar, which is why I say it's a factor of desire rather than reason.
- kornhole 3y ago
  It is easier to con someone who THINKS he is intelligent. A smart person does not think he is smart and knows he can be fooled.
- spookthesunset 3y ago
  A restatement might be: There is "book smart" intelligence and "street smart" intelligence. People without a lot of street smarts but a lot of book smarts are probably easier to con.
archagon 3y ago
Step one is realizing that the establishment lies to you. Step two is recognizing that the other guys are more than happy to lie to you too, or lie to themselves, and have an even easier time of it due to lack of vetting.
- Chathamization 3y ago
  Exactly. Having general skepticism is admirable. Having selective skepticism isn't.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  The problem is that when you are leaning towards believing something anyway and find out that you were being lied to about it, you don't become more critical of all information, just information that is in conflict with what 'seems' right to you. It is a terrible side-effect of doing things like teaching kids in the 80s and 90s that marijuana was a terrible drug because when they find out it isn't, then everything else they said is suspect and any authority that tries to say anything about drugs gets treated with suspicion. In line with this, using fear of the worst possible outcome in order to scare people backfires heavily if it doesn't happen because then convincing them of anything related to that subject again is going to have to come from a completely different source and direction.
api 3y ago
I realize the MSM lies. I just also realize that “alternative” media lies as well, especially when it’s full of hyper-partisan or ideologue hacks. Taibbi is clearly a partisan hack that only attacks one side, ever. I don’t know the other one but his feed has a strong new right hack feel to it. There are plenty of lefty hacks around too. It’s not a one sided phenomenon.
- kcplate 3y ago
  > Taibbi is clearly a partisan hack that only attacks one side, ever. You should probably expand your reading to his articles in Rolling Stone, particularly those from 4-5 years ago. You would not say “ever” if you did that. But…for a writer that admittedly leans left in his politics, he is willing to call out that side when a story leads there. He is much like Glenn Greenwald in that respect. Both he and Glenn get a lot of hate from folks on the left for daring to stray from the left messaging orthodoxy.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    He falls into the class of writers who claims to lean left but in the past years has actually been a pretty obvious supporter of the right. This is a transparent yet effective schtick - for some reason people never question the framing of "even so-and-so is willing to call out their own side".
    - dent9876543 3y ago
      Since COVID, I find the who left and right thing hugely confusing. I used to identify as left, and would still do that, except that what passed for left-leaning news during COVID became nothing more than propaganda, and left-leaning journalist put their investigative and sceptical credentials to one side. During COVID, and still perhaps even now, it turns out you can become a member of the far right, just by staying politically still.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        > Since COVID, I find the who left and right thing hugely confusing. There really seem to be some strange shifts recently in the US where the democrats have become quite a bit more hawkish and intolerant of alternative opinions than I have ever seen before in my lifetime.
jimkleiber 3y ago
Often new, independent journalists will claim that the mainstream media is lying to the citizens and when I replace "mainstream media" with "my competitors" it makes a lot more sense. "My competitors are lying to you" is a variation of the "my competitors have a bad product" claim that I imagine many small businesses make to discredit the market leader. Does it mean that the market leaders have a better product? Not necessarily, but I don't automatically trust a business to be honest about its competitors, especially if the business is new and gets market share by directly attacking its competitors.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]

fsckboy 3y ago

I think it's a case of not noticing because they agree with the directionality of the MSM's opinions, so it doesn't stick out to them.

the_arcadian 3y ago

They say it is always easier to con intelligent people, because they don't think they are capable of being fooled.

spyder 3y ago
Hmm... but intelligent people don't think they're that intelligent (Dunning–Kruger effect) :-)
droopyEyelids 3y ago
This is fun to think about but I dont buy it. All levels of aptitude/intelligence are equally likely to be conned because a con works by getting your emotions to turn your intelligence to the task of tricking you. For example, by exciting your greed so much you come up with a justification for why an unusual circumstance is genuine.
- lmm 3y ago
  > For example, by exciting your greed so much you come up with a justification for why an unusual circumstance is genuine. But you might be better at that the more intelligent you are. E.g. I understand there's an established result that professional ethicists and ethics researchers act less ethically than the average person on average, because they find it easier to come up with excuses for how what they wanted to do was actually ethical.
  - droopyEyelids 3y ago
    Agreed! However, you're missing that the higher your aptitude, the higher the bar for tricking yourself. So yes, a very intelligent person can come up with a sophisticated justification to trick themselves. A less intelligent person will come up with a less sophisticated narrative. Both people work on the con till it's enough to pass their bar, which is why I say it's a factor of desire rather than reason.
kornhole 3y ago
It is easier to con someone who THINKS he is intelligent. A smart person does not think he is smart and knows he can be fooled.
spookthesunset 3y ago
A restatement might be: There is "book smart" intelligence and "street smart" intelligence. People without a lot of street smarts but a lot of book smarts are probably easier to con.

archagon 3y ago

Step one is realizing that the establishment lies to you. Step two is recognizing that the other guys are more than happy to lie to you too, or lie to themselves, and have an even easier time of it due to lack of vetting.

Chathamization 3y ago
Exactly. Having general skepticism is admirable. Having selective skepticism isn't.
Eisenstein 3y ago
The problem is that when you are leaning towards believing something anyway and find out that you were being lied to about it, you don't become more critical of all information, just information that is in conflict with what 'seems' right to you. It is a terrible side-effect of doing things like teaching kids in the 80s and 90s that marijuana was a terrible drug because when they find out it isn't, then everything else they said is suspect and any authority that tries to say anything about drugs gets treated with suspicion. In line with this, using fear of the worst possible outcome in order to scare people backfires heavily if it doesn't happen because then convincing them of anything related to that subject again is going to have to come from a completely different source and direction.

api 3y ago

I realize the MSM lies. I just also realize that “alternative” media lies as well, especially when it’s full of hyper-partisan or ideologue hacks. Taibbi is clearly a partisan hack that only attacks one side, ever. I don’t know the other one but his feed has a strong new right hack feel to it. There are plenty of lefty hacks around too. It’s not a one sided phenomenon.

kcplate 3y ago
> Taibbi is clearly a partisan hack that only attacks one side, ever. You should probably expand your reading to his articles in Rolling Stone, particularly those from 4-5 years ago. You would not say “ever” if you did that. But…for a writer that admittedly leans left in his politics, he is willing to call out that side when a story leads there. He is much like Glenn Greenwald in that respect. Both he and Glenn get a lot of hate from folks on the left for daring to stray from the left messaging orthodoxy.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  He falls into the class of writers who claims to lean left but in the past years has actually been a pretty obvious supporter of the right. This is a transparent yet effective schtick - for some reason people never question the framing of "even so-and-so is willing to call out their own side".
  - dent9876543 3y ago
    Since COVID, I find the who left and right thing hugely confusing. I used to identify as left, and would still do that, except that what passed for left-leaning news during COVID became nothing more than propaganda, and left-leaning journalist put their investigative and sceptical credentials to one side. During COVID, and still perhaps even now, it turns out you can become a member of the far right, just by staying politically still.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      > Since COVID, I find the who left and right thing hugely confusing. There really seem to be some strange shifts recently in the US where the democrats have become quite a bit more hawkish and intolerant of alternative opinions than I have ever seen before in my lifetime.

jimkleiber 3y ago

Often new, independent journalists will claim that the mainstream media is lying to the citizens and when I replace "mainstream media" with "my competitors" it makes a lot more sense. "My competitors are lying to you" is a variation of the "my competitors have a bad product" claim that I imagine many small businesses make to discredit the market leader. Does it mean that the market leaders have a better product? Not necessarily, but I don't automatically trust a business to be honest about its competitors, especially if the business is new and gets market share by directly attacking its competitors.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]